**From:** Simon Gordon (*sim_dizzy@yahoo.com*)

**Date:** Fri Aug 13 2004 - 07:37:14 MDT

**Next message:**David: "Re: All is number"**Previous message:**Mark Waser: "Re: All is number"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "Re: All is number"**Next in thread:**fudley: "Re: All is number"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew@ceruleansystems.com>

wrote:

*> On Aug 12, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Simon Gordon wrote:
*

*> > This goes against the grain of what i was saying.
*

*> > There are no details. The fairlytale is only
*

*> described
*

*> > in words; we cannot construct a computer program
*

*> if we
*

*> > dont know the math behind it, that is obvious.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> The entire fairytale is reducible to the information
*

*> content of the
*

*> words used to describe it. Nothing more, nothing
*

*> less. A nice finite
*

*> pattern of bits for which there is an entire field
*

*> of mathematics to
*

*> deal with it.
*

What you have said is 100% assumption. There is

currently no known way of reducing the "information

content of the words" into a nice piece of finite

mathematics. Nor is there any reason to believe there

will ever be a way to do this; see my previous

argument about an infinite set of possible minds

interacting with the word abstract or the fairytale

abstract.

*> Every conceivable description of anything you can
*

*> imagine in this
*

*> universe is reducible to a tidy mathematical
*

*> algorithm.
*

You have a failure to acknowledge that Numerocentric

reductionism, in the extreme form as applied to ALL

things, might be wrong. We are not talking about just

this universe, "All" is more inclusive than that.

*> This includes
*

*> all notions you may have about other universes where
*

*> math doesn't
*

*> apply.
*

I agree that my notions of whatever it is i am

describing are inherently mathematical, because i am a

neural pattern. But you are thinking like a robot

without any understanding of the word "mu" or the

ability to see outside your own formal systems. Im not

talking about *my notions* of anything, im talking

about the actual abstractions of those notions, namely

the fairytale universes. To limit them to just being

*my notions* is to see just one perspective on them,

using a single formal system, its not seeing outside

the box. You are commiting the fallacy of a machine

that says "cannot compute", "cannot compute"

repeatedly when faced with a seemingly impossible

object or "koan".

*> What you are really saying is "let's pretend
*

*> math doesn't apply
*

*> to this universe so that I can imagine another
*

*> universe in which math
*

*> doesn't apply", which is what this distills down to
*

*> if you haven't
*

*> figured it out yet.
*

Math does apply. But so does language. If math was the

simplest explanation for anything then why wouldnt we

use it on a day to day basis to make rational

arguments? Its funny how over 99% of sl4 posts are

coposed entirely of words. It turns out that the

simplest way to explain most human situations is to

use natural language. Language is a code, just as math

is a code, and things can manifest from language too.

Generally speaking, humans compute in language not

math. Though we often try to reduce our rational

arguments to pure logic and math, quite often the task

is too complex for us to complete, and may even be

theoretically impossible. The idea that all the

manifestions of our conscious understandings are

theoretically reducible to math is an ASSUMPTION.

*> You can no more imagine a world where mathematics
*

*> doesn't apply than
*

*> you can imagine the number pi.
*

Let me make my position clear, i am

numero-reductionist in the sense that i believe that

*this* universe is entirely reducible to math. But

that does not rule out the possibility that there are

other more holistic levels of explanation accesible to

complex beings like ourselves with complex neural

wirings capable of organising patterns into emergent

hierarchies, indeed language is one such example of a

holistic level of explanantion. There is no reason to

believe that our brain has to convert natural language

into numbers in order to process it, this would

probably be too inefficient to be feasible on a human

timescale anyway.

I find it more acceptable to say that "All is

information" rather than "All is number" because

although i can conceive of abstract entities which are

not reducible to number, i cannot currently conceive

of anything which cannot in some way be thought of as

information. Though the fact that i can contemplate

this suggests to me that i shouldnt rule it out.

Certainly fairytales can be thought of as information,

on that we can both agree.

Simon Gordon.

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

**Next message:**David: "Re: All is number"**Previous message:**Mark Waser: "Re: All is number"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "Re: All is number"**Next in thread:**fudley: "Re: All is number"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:48 MDT
*